D&D 5E Boop

[Garthanos]

Battlemaster the name - > is a great Take off of the name Warlord a brilliant one to be honest.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think the warlord could work as a "prestige class"

Take X levels in fighter / rogue / barbarian and a warlord prestige class option opens up.

 

[Garthanos]

I think the warlord could work as a "prestige class"

I thought that was the bard...
You want to be a bard you have to be Y levels of this and X levels of that and Z levels of the other thing then you have the privilege of being a the proud owner of a completely non-functional character which you might as well just get killed hurray.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I thought that was the bard...

It was essentially a PrC, 20 years early.

PrCs would actually be a great addition to 5e: as a DM resource and setting-specific color, mechanically realized.

The PDK is a weak concept for an archetype, perfect for a setting-tie-in PrC.

 

[Garthanos]

It was essentially a PrC, 20 years early.

PrCs would actually be a great addition to 5e: as a DM resource and setting-specific color, mechanically realized.

I will go with Theme/PP/ED... thanks.

Oh and Warlord would suck that way the same as Wizard would.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I need more explanation on this idea some examples perhaps.

AIso I think you overestimate the impact of fighting styles they are pretty low impact resources and the frequency of the superiority dice makes I hit it with my sword and do that again and again the main activity for this character ... and while I do like a Fighter/Warlord combo I like more Warlord in the mix than just that tiny subtype which once in a while affects only one ally at a time only rarely and is more of a beat stick machine most of the time which is all the Battlemaster touches on.

what example could be needed? You can make an attack using all the same rules as a legendary action, which on a BM means you can do a weapon attack with an extra damage die on a hit that also does a secondary effect.

we could add maneuvers that do stuff like group buffs, sure.

I really think you and tony are much too stuck on the idea that the structure of the class has to basically just be a full caster reflavored in order to do the concept justice. It very doesn’t.

 

[Marandahir]

I think the crux of the matter here is that 5e doesn’t play like 4e.

It’s a boatload more simplified in combat so as to prevent the game from requiring miniatures/battle mats.

Characters just don’t have as many powers as they did in 4e. Spellcasters might, but even there the arcane spells/divine prayers/primal evocations/psionic powers have been codified again into a single Spells chapter, so different classes access the same powers (so fewer unique magical powers over all).

It’s a different game. I love 4e, but not everything that was a Class in 4e is going to be a class in 5e. The editions have different ideas of what it means to have a class. In 4e, a Swordmage could be its own class, but while one could build an arcane-fighter halfcaster, it’s very hard to find a broad flavour there that has lots of room for subclasses of differing ideas. It works well enough as subclasses for various different casters/noncasters.

Warlord is an example of a class with a really cool mechanic but not much story difference for what makes them not a Fighter, and what makes an Inspiring Warlord different from a Tactical Warlord different from a Bravura or Resourceful or Skirmishing or Insightful one.

That’s why I brought up Battle Master and Banneret Fighters, Mastermind Rogue, the Superior Technique Fighting Style, and the Martial Adept feat. The Warlord is a concept that fits into different wings of different classes. A Bravura Warlord inspiring with courage from the frontlines functions differently from a LazyLord moving around allies like chess pieces and granting them attacks, functions differently from a skirmishing fighter leader functions differently from a master of tactical abilities.

We now have a fourth alternative access into that tactical system, so there’s lots of ways to capture the flavour of a 4e Warlord within 5e.

Want to play an Insightful Skirmishing Warlord? Take Archery or Thrown Weapon Fighting Style alongside Battle Master or Banneret. Have a higher wisdom score. Multiclass Scout Rogue or Ranger if you’re really seeking that Aragorn-like character.

But you’re fooling yourselves if you think 5e can ever accurately reflect the specific tactical game play of 4e. The game doesn’t try to do that and it’s ill-suited to shoe-horn the feature in.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I really think you and tony are much too stuck on the idea that the structure of the class has to basically just be a full caster reflavored in order to do the concept justice. It very doesn’t.

It needs to have significant resources, or it won't be able to adequately contribute over a broad enough range, to be a viable support class. It definitely shouldn't just be re-flavored casting, like the faux-spell-less Ranger that casts spells, but pretends they're something else.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

It needs to have significant resources, or it won't be able to adequately contribute over a broad enough range, to be a viable support class. It definitely shouldn't just be re-flavored casting, like the faux-spell-less Ranger that casts spells, but pretends they're something else.

But what if they were refluffed spell with no components and that worked in anti-magic zones?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It needs to have significant resources, or it won't be able to adequately contribute over a broad enough range, to be a viable support class. It definitely shouldn't just be re-flavored casting, like the faux-spell-less Ranger that casts spells, but pretends they're something else.

They need some kind of resource, sure. Only the rogue operates sans recharging resources.

but they don’t need to be long rest, they just need to have enough to use them in every fight.

and support doesn’t require healing as well as afull caster. Healing is the only aspect of support that requires big spell slots, and it isn’t soemthing every support character needs to focus on.